The voting age should be lowered to six years-old, maybe put a ceiling at eleven years-old. Old enough to read, but young enough to still believe in sharing and being nice to people.

>> ^AeroMechanical:


Kicking a 60 yard field goal at your leisure isn't actually very hard. Many people can do that. Doing it while eleven monstrous men are doing their utmost to stop you, preferably severely injuring you in the process, is the real trick.


Playing hacky-sack with the ball then a bicycle kick through the uprights (1:47) is worthy of some respect.

>> ^messenger:

There have been thirteen successful 60-yard field goals kicked in professional football history, and some of the other abilities he shows, especially hitting another ball in flight, are incredible.>> ^chingalera:
>> ^messenger:
skillful

I struggle to notice any intrinsic or perceived skill in what this person is doing. Does the fact that he hails from Norway somehow validate some worthy achievement?
discuss



Kicking a 60 yard field goal at your leisure isn't actually very hard. Many people can do that. Doing it while eleven monstrous men are doing their utmost to stop you, preferably severely injuring you in the process, is the real trick.

>> ^chingalera:

>> ^Zaibach:
All Humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo.


"EARTHLINGS DO NOT KNOW THE MEANING OF SUFFERING...hah hah hah mu hah!!"



"Tonight at eleven, "DOOOOOOOOOM!!!!"

@ 1:31 looks like a transformer exploding in the background @ about eleven-o-clock.

(I'm just 6 minutes too late to submit this one!)

Found this on Dangerous Minds:

Why is someone as blinkered as Michelle Leonhart serving as a top DEA administrator? Her opinion about marijuana being as dangerous as other illegal drugs like heroin, crack, or meth hardly rises to the level of superstition let alone any kind of objective science.

This dumbass obviously has no idea what she is talking about. This is an infuriating display of complete idiocy and willful ignorance. Or else she’s just lying and stonewalling with the DEA party line, of course, but the “deer in the headlights” uncomprehending look on her face as she’s being grilled probably indicates that she’s being sincere. And stupid. Via The Raw Story:

During a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, Drug Enforcement Administrator Michele Leonhart repeatedly refused to admit that anything was more addictive or harmful than marijuana.

Democratic Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado pressed Leonhart on whether illegal drugs like methamphetamine and crack, as well as legal prescription drugs, caused greater harm to public health compared to marijuana. But within a three minute time-span, Leonhart dodged his questions eleven times.

“Is crack worse for a person than marijuana?” Polis, who has called for an end to marijuana prohibition, asked.

“I believe all illegal drugs are bad,” Leonhart responded.

“Is methamphetamine worse for somebody’s health than marijuana?” Polis continued. “Is heroin worse for somebody’s health than marijuana?”

“Again, all drugs,” Leonhart began to say, only to be cut off by Polis.

“Yes, no, or I don’t know?” Polis said. “If you don’t know this, you can look this up. As the chief administrator for the Drug Enforcement Agency, I’m asking a very straightforward question.”


If Leonhart REALLY doesn’t know the difference between pot and crack and their respective effects on the human body, as her answers would seem to indicate, may I suggest she actually TRY the drugs that she has no idea about and form a sensible opinion? Or maybe check in with some longtime pot smokers and some longtime crack heads or toothless meth addicts so she can see the difference? Or would that just be too easy? (31 years of daily pot smoking for me, I’ll meet with Leonhart happily and even subject myself to medical testing. I am a definitive study of one, trust me.)

Public opinion should force people like Leonhart out of their jobs where they have too much control over the lives of others. She was appointed by Bush and re-appointed by Obama in 2010. She’s an embarrassment to both administrations. A buffoon. An ignoramous. There wasn’t a person in the room—even the Republicans—who was impressed by this woman’s astonishing lack of expertise (and therefore NOTABLE lack of qualifications for her position). How could anyone be impressed by her performance on Capital Hill? She should be fired immediately.

“Is heroin worse for someone’s health than marijuana?” It’s not a trick question! The answer is YES, for fuck’s sake. The average senior citizen has a more enlightened approach than this DEA clownjob. WHAT are this woman’s qualifications for her job, anyway? A pulse?

Bring the goddamn drug laws into the 21st century, PLEASE. This is just getting to be so fucking stupid.

Kudos to Rep Jared Polis of Colorado for so doggedly exposing this nonsense. We need more like him in Congress.

>> ^Trancecoach:

@davidraine, @NetRunner: Please read the article, then we can have a discussion.


Done. That was a very entitled and misogynistic read, and the arguments sounded exactly like the ones the Republican on Meet The Press presented. The $40k/$47k line was used specifically -- except that it's a figure that's now eleven years old, so who knows how valid it is anymore. In any event, I claim that based on this sample of his work, the book represents a very misogynistic viewpoint. Not everything in the book is going to be anti-woman, but there's enough there to form a clear pattern.

"Give women ways of earning more rather than suing more." / "Give companies ways of teaching women how to earn more."

Both of these statements stem from the belief that women think they are a privileged class and should get more rights and protections then men. It further states that the playing field is already level, and if women were just a little smarter they'd figure out how to earn more and wouldn't need the courts to fight their battles for them. This is misogynistic on its face -- It is a belief that women aren't as bright as men and need special training to "earn more", and a belief that women aren't already doing the same work men are. It also assumes that the playing field is actually level, which it is not.

"At this moment in history, gender-specific research is funded with a consciousness toward making women in the workplace look equally engaged but unequally paid."

This espouses a belief that there is an agenda behind equal-pay studies and that the researchers were biased and cannot be trusted. It's a form of "projecting" -- Modern Republicans (among others) love this tactic and truly believe in it because their studies have an agenda and are biased, so all studies must be the same way. The fact is that biased studies don't hold up to scrutiny (peer review), and research methodologies are published to help verify the quality of a study. It's also the same argument that you used in an earlier post: "The statistics can be shown to prove anything, so I can raise a counterargument without supporting it with data."

"From the Jobs Rated Almanac’s worst-job list: We often hear that women are segregated into lower-paying jobs. What is probably true is that women are more likely to take lower paid jobs precisely to avoid these worst jobs." / "The fields with the highest paid workers bias toward engineering, computers and the hard sciences while the lowest paid are doing work that almost any adult can do—therefore there is no end to the supply of available people."

The fact that this is still used as an argument means that those using it are being deliberately misleading. This misses the point and always has. If unequal pay was a function of occupation choice, then a man and a woman in the same job at the same company would make the same amount of money. This is provably false.

"Men’s Weakness As Their Façade Of Strength; Women’s Strength as Their Façade Of Weakness" / "In most fields with higher pay, you can’t psychologically check out at the end of the day (corporate attorney vs. librarian)"

These comments espouse a belief in seriously outdated gender roles. Assuming women should be shrinking violets that do their work behind the scenes and do amazing things that surprise the men she is working under is not the way it works anymore, and thank goodness because that was a bunch of crap when it was expected (which was what, five decades ago?). The concept that women can't handle the stress of not leaving work behind when you leave work is equally misogynistic.

"People Who Get Higher Pay..."

This is the last one I'll tackle, and I'm going to repeat myself here, because it bears repeating. This is the heart of what's wrong with the "equal-pay is a myth" counterargument. The whole chapter and the next is predicated on the belief that women make less because they're making the wrong choices, not risking as much as their male counterparts, and are working less than the men even though they're in the same position. Therefore women *should* earn less because women are *doing* less.

Except that women *aren't* doing less. They don't just occupy the same positions, they do the same work. In some cases they do more work, and are still stiffed and passed over for promotion. Women are willing and able to do exactly what men do for their jobs, and yet they make considerably less for no reason other than their gender. There isn't an "effort gap" or "reverse sexism" or "societal factors" in play here -- Those have been modeled and they don't explain the disparity. It is discrimination, plain and simple. It's literally the only explanation left over.

Thanks for the link, I have heard of this one but haven't seen it, will check it out. I have seen "Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips" and on Youtube there are some of the racist clips, like Bugs Bunny in "Southern Fried Rabbit", where he pretends to be a slave in front of Yosemite Sam.

On the same subject, one thing I noticed firsthand was for the longest time in the early 70s the TV would show the complete cartoon where Elmer Fudd plays a Canadian Mountie and at the end he has Bugs Bunny in front of a firing squad. He asks Bugs if he has any last requests and Bugs says "I wish......I wish.......I wish I was in Dixie" and it cuts to a scene in a cotton field with several guys in black face singing "Camptown Ladies". Then one day they stopped showing the final scene, they would cut to the closing "That's All Folks" right after Bugs says "I wish I was in Dixie".

I was confused at first at the change, then slowly figured out why they stopped showing that final scene. Let me see if I can find it online.

thanks again for the link.

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
By the way, have you ever seen "Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs"?.

It's one of the "Banned Eleven" Looney Tunes that are considered too blatantly derogatory to black people to syndicate. Video link is below. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censored_Eleven

http://videosift.com/video/Coal-Black-and-de-Sebben-Dwarfs

By the way, have you ever seen "Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs"?.

It's one of the "Banned Eleven" Looney Tunes that are considered too blatantly derogatory to black people to syndicate. Video link is below. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censored_Eleven

http://videosift.com/video/Coal-Black-and-de-Sebben-Dwarfs

>> ^notarobot:

I'm looking forward to eleven more months of Romney videos.


Hell, you'll also be seeing this one over and over again 11 for months too.

It'll just snowball out from here into long montages.

Corporations are people my friend, I like firing people, I bet you $10,000 bucks...

Golden oldies will return! Who let the dogs out!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Mikhail Baryshnikov, Pirouettes, Eleven' to 'Mikhail Baryshnikov, Pirouettes, Eleven, White Knights' - edited by RhesusMonk

I thought that said "Mikhail Baryshnikov does eleven prostitutes" at first glance. Now that would've been something to behold.

http://videosift.com/video/Boneremake-is-excited-about-almost-making-Diamond

Shape sifting video...
and eleven111 votes from 60,000.

wowser!

is it sad that this is better than the past eleven birthdays I have had ?